Canon will squeeze out the last drop of commercial value from this line of sensors before they move to the next generation. They is after all a commercial company trying to eek out a profit.

Since the new hybrid sensor has been around almost a year now, I'd expect to see it for a while. Its not the same sensor as in the older cameras.Some think that the number of pixels defines sensor technology. That's why we had megapixel wars, because the uneducated masses think that more is always better.So far, no one has moved away from the basic silicon technology, no black silicon or other revolutionary technology. There are slightly different versions of it, but no new tech has come out, and none is on the horizon.Even the three layer foveon sensors use old tech silicon.

It may sound silly but the target customers of Rebel or EOS-B usually don't care about number of AF points or quality of sensor - price and gimmicks are more important. I saw it on myself and my family / friends. Rebel users can be in my opinion divided into three groups:

First time DSLR users who will never uncover full potential of their entry level camera. They will use as much auto features as possible - auto focus, auto focus point selection, auto white balance, auto exposition (and scenic modes later), auto ISO jpg, etc.

Few users from the first group will go deeper, find limitation of their camera it the area of their interest and some of them will look for upgrade. I count myself into this group.

More skilled users who are looking for second / third DSLR body where the main requirement is size / weight or who are looking for a camera for their family members (that goes back to the first group).

If you don't know anything about DSLR, MP count may be something you will compare in product lists but when it comes to hands-on comparison all those gimmicks matters. The reason why I bought Rebel T4i as my first camera was because my friends use Canon (= recommendation) and because of ergonomics. It feels better in my hands than Nikon and it has a stellar feature - the touch screen. That is the WOW feature when I show my camera to my friends. Nobody cares what sensor do I have or how many AF points my camera have because they usually have older models which are sufficient for their needs but all of them see huge benefit in touch screen because the user experience in handling the camera settings and browsing / zooming images is what mass market in 2013 expects. The touch screen will be the only feature I will miss after upgrading to better model (6D).

If Canon adds WiFi to entry level model to make syncing images to tablet or smartphone straightforward, Nikon and others will IMHO not be impressive by their technology but only by their price because Canon is usually more expensive.

Btw. I don't believe that 18 MP or 24 MP makes any big difference in cameras mostly used with kit lenses and images used for small prints or web presentations (with no post production at all).

Canon is known for warmover models -- but this spec T5i is too close to the T4i even for Canon.

But they moved to digic5 (faster fps), certainly updated the fw (rt flashes, more gimmicks) and probably did some other changes that makes this model more attractive to *produce* for *Canon* - and next to that a new model will sell better in the Rebel market simply due to being "new".

However I'd like to thank Canon for sticking to the 18mp sensor so my 60d still isn't outdated :-)

Canon has become so unimpressive with their camera specs lately. Has anyone seen what even a small family owned company like Sigma is doing? They've managed to stuff a 46MP Foveon Sensor into a point-and-shoot, and their lenses have recently been setting benchmarks that put even the best L glass to shame at a fraction of the cost. Canon needs to get off of their lazy asses and start innovating. They clearly have the means, just apparently not much inspiration.

The way to get to 46MP is by multiplying by 3. It is on the specs page...

Canon still need to get off their you-know-whats but Sigma's 46MP looks like marketing to me.

Still you have to applaud Sigma's effort for at least trying something new (whether it's just marketing hype or not will have to be reserved for real world testing). Canon hasn't had a wow! feature since putting radio transceivers into their flash units (which I absolutely LOVE!). I'll say it again, what really disappoints me with Canon is that they have the largest marketshare and the technology to do so much better, but they seem to be content with just coasting along. I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could blow the doors off the competition, so why the mediocre upgrades time and time again? There's no excuse for it. I want Canon to do better because they can.

Which is why I wrote "Canon still need to get off their you-know-whats"...

Canon has become so unimpressive with their camera specs lately. Has anyone seen what even a small family owned company like Sigma is doing? They've managed to stuff a 46MP Foveon Sensor into a point-and-shoot, and their lenses have recently been setting benchmarks that put even the best L glass to shame at a fraction of the cost. Canon needs to get off of their lazy asses and start innovating. They clearly have the means, just apparently not much inspiration.

The way to get to 46MP is by multiplying by 3. It is on the specs page...

Canon still need to get off their you-know-whats but Sigma's 46MP looks like marketing to me.

Still you have to applaud Sigma's effort for at least trying something new (whether it's just marketing hype or not will have to be reserved for real world testing). Canon hasn't had a wow! feature since putting radio transceivers into their flash units (which I absolutely LOVE!). I'll say it again, what really disappoints me with Canon is that they have the largest marketshare and the technology to do so much better, but they seem to be content with just coasting along. I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could blow the doors off the competition, so why the mediocre upgrades time and time again? There's no excuse for it. I want Canon to do better because they can.

Agreed! Even the giant corporate slug that is Microsoft is taking risks and trying new things with products like Windows 8 and Surface. Ok so they're not directly comparable companies but the message is the same: you need to keep on your toes, even at the top.

We have reached a point where all of the recent sensors are good enough for commercial print. I was shooting with a 40D for newspapers until about this time last year.

The D800 and D600 are so far out of this bracket you cannot compare them. It is a shame but bitching isnt going to solve the problem.

The D800 vs 5DMKIII they couldn't be more different in their application, and although the 5DMKIII may fall behind slightly in IQ and DR at least you can use them and have accurate colour, let alone problems with the sensors.

Same with the D600 vs 6D they are both compromises. The D600 may have more points but they are spread in such a small area of the viewfinder that having 39 in that space is overkill same again with oily sensors... The 6D has also proved itself in the IQ and noise department.

When Canon finally release the new sensor tech im sure it will blow away the competition they are biding their time for a reason and for average photographers that 18mp sensor is more than adequate, old and behind admittedly but this crowd isnt really who this camera is for.

if you want to buy a competitive camera from canon today you have to pay 2800$ for the 5D MK3.

evertyhing below that you better buy a nikon product.. sad but true.

I disagree, Canon EOS 7D is a fantastic camera and it costs less than half the price of 5D MK III ... I use a Nikon D7000 because of the Nikkor 18-300mm lens, if Canon had a 18-300mm lens I'd have continued to use the Canon EOS 7D5D MKII also costs less than 5D MKIII and it is great all round camera, which was/is much better than the Nikon D700Canon 6D also costs less than 5D MK III and it does not have an oily sensor and does not produce green tinge images like Nikon D600On Nikon D5000 & D3000 series of cameras you cannot have AF using many of thier lenses, if one wants to use some of the Nikkor good glass on the lower end models they have to be content with manual focus only ... whereas Canon xxxD & 1000D series bodies can auto focus on ALL of the EF & EF-S glass Canon makes.

Despair is the right word. No innovation here, no smaller EOS line, no AF improvements, and so on. Typically Canon, ridiculously small "steps" while the contenders move ahead. Lately, I got my hands on a 650D (Regel T4i?): very cheap plastics, just like the 1100D, worse than the predecessors. All other brands offer better quality, better AF and for years now, less noise. Hard to imagine that Canon once was far ahead of the others regarding noise, but they really screwed up in the last years. That happens when you are market leader and get lazy and complacent.

if you want to buy a competitive camera from canon today you have to pay 2800$ for the 5D MK3.

evertyhing below that you better buy a nikon product.. sad but true.

I disagree, Canon EOS 7D is a fantastic camera and it costs less than half the price of 5D MK III ... I use a Nikon D7000 because of the Nikkor 18-300mm lens, if Canon had a 18-300mm lens I'd have continued to use the Canon EOS 7D5D MKII also costs less than 5D MKIII and it is great all round camera, which was/is much better than the Nikon D700Canon 6D also costs less than 5D MK III and it does not have an oily sensor and does not produce green tinge images like Nikon D600On Nikon D5000 & D3000 series of cameras you cannot have AF using many of thier lenses, if one wants to use some of the Nikkor good glass on the lower end models they have to be content with manual focus only ... whereas Canon xxxD & 1000D series bodies can auto focus on ALL of the EF & EF-S glass Canon makes.